- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: Blank . User wants the history, but is ok with a blank. Let's roll with that. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
User:AjaxSmack/Huá
Userfied this by request over six years ago, no substantive edits since, so should be deleted as a very stale draft. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicate of a dictionary def. Are you trolling your edits from 6 years ago today? Legacypac ( talk) 01:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete - This draft is also dead, and needs burial. Curious comment, that this is in the user space of a real user, but the real user has never edited it. That doesn't change much, only making the odor of decay a little stranger. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)- Strong Keep, unless AjaxSmack no longer wants it. The user whose space in which this resides was active as recently as October 21, 2018. Active, longstanding editors should be and are traditionally allowed to retain non-afc userspace drafts without time limits. There is no deadline, and perhaps AjaxSmack intends to use this to improve the encyclopedia but has not gotten to it. There is no harm in retaining this, especially because it contains content so benign. If the editor whose userspace this is in was inactive, I would suggest blanking with {{ inactive userspace blanked}} per WP:STALEDRAFT. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 09:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I know that AlexSmack is an active editor, and has never edited this draft in question. That is what I meant above. They aren't doing anything with this draft, and the draft isn't being used usefully. If they want this draft, they know where this MFD discussion is. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Further information and I do apologize for not including a link in the nomination, but I think the case gets a lot more clear if you read this brief talk page section, and I’ll quote the particularly relevant part: ”Thanks. I don't think there's anything worth salvaging but I couldn't remember. — AjaxSmack 9:09 pm, 31 August 2012, Friday. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- If it is causing some problems or bothering other editors, delete it per WP:STALEDRAFT, or if possible, blank the page with {{ inactive userspace blanked}}. — AjaxSmack 23:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- But you clearly aren’t inactive, since you just made this post. I don’t understand the point of blanking a draft that has clearly been abandinded and that you yourself gave up on as unsalvageable six years ago. We aren’t as strict as we used to be about stale drafts, but nor are we so lenient that usefying is for permamnet storage of a draft that nobody is willing or able to improve into a real article.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 01:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the problem is here anyway. I just assumed that blanking it would keep the text away from offended eyes or wayward searches, but still allow me to access the text through the history. It's really not that important to me, though; do what you want. —
AjaxSmack 03:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is no problem with retaining the page because you are longstanding and active per my comment above. @ Robert McClenon: "If they want this draft, they know where this MFD discussion is"; they have now commented. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 14:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the problem is here anyway. I just assumed that blanking it would keep the text away from offended eyes or wayward searches, but still allow me to access the text through the history. It's really not that important to me, though; do what you want. —
AjaxSmack 03:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- But you clearly aren’t inactive, since you just made this post. I don’t understand the point of blanking a draft that has clearly been abandinded and that you yourself gave up on as unsalvageable six years ago. We aren’t as strict as we used to be about stale drafts, but nor are we so lenient that usefying is for permamnet storage of a draft that nobody is willing or able to improve into a real article.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 01:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral as useless but harmless. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: Blank . User wants the history, but is ok with a blank. Let's roll with that. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
User:AjaxSmack/Huá
Userfied this by request over six years ago, no substantive edits since, so should be deleted as a very stale draft. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as duplicate of a dictionary def. Are you trolling your edits from 6 years ago today? Legacypac ( talk) 01:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete - This draft is also dead, and needs burial. Curious comment, that this is in the user space of a real user, but the real user has never edited it. That doesn't change much, only making the odor of decay a little stranger. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)- Strong Keep, unless AjaxSmack no longer wants it. The user whose space in which this resides was active as recently as October 21, 2018. Active, longstanding editors should be and are traditionally allowed to retain non-afc userspace drafts without time limits. There is no deadline, and perhaps AjaxSmack intends to use this to improve the encyclopedia but has not gotten to it. There is no harm in retaining this, especially because it contains content so benign. If the editor whose userspace this is in was inactive, I would suggest blanking with {{ inactive userspace blanked}} per WP:STALEDRAFT. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 09:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I know that AlexSmack is an active editor, and has never edited this draft in question. That is what I meant above. They aren't doing anything with this draft, and the draft isn't being used usefully. If they want this draft, they know where this MFD discussion is. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Further information and I do apologize for not including a link in the nomination, but I think the case gets a lot more clear if you read this brief talk page section, and I’ll quote the particularly relevant part: ”Thanks. I don't think there's anything worth salvaging but I couldn't remember. — AjaxSmack 9:09 pm, 31 August 2012, Friday. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- If it is causing some problems or bothering other editors, delete it per WP:STALEDRAFT, or if possible, blank the page with {{ inactive userspace blanked}}. — AjaxSmack 23:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- But you clearly aren’t inactive, since you just made this post. I don’t understand the point of blanking a draft that has clearly been abandinded and that you yourself gave up on as unsalvageable six years ago. We aren’t as strict as we used to be about stale drafts, but nor are we so lenient that usefying is for permamnet storage of a draft that nobody is willing or able to improve into a real article.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 01:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the problem is here anyway. I just assumed that blanking it would keep the text away from offended eyes or wayward searches, but still allow me to access the text through the history. It's really not that important to me, though; do what you want. —
AjaxSmack 03:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is no problem with retaining the page because you are longstanding and active per my comment above. @ Robert McClenon: "If they want this draft, they know where this MFD discussion is"; they have now commented. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 14:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the problem is here anyway. I just assumed that blanking it would keep the text away from offended eyes or wayward searches, but still allow me to access the text through the history. It's really not that important to me, though; do what you want. —
AjaxSmack 03:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- But you clearly aren’t inactive, since you just made this post. I don’t understand the point of blanking a draft that has clearly been abandinded and that you yourself gave up on as unsalvageable six years ago. We aren’t as strict as we used to be about stale drafts, but nor are we so lenient that usefying is for permamnet storage of a draft that nobody is willing or able to improve into a real article.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 01:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral as useless but harmless. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.